On 4 Jun 2014, at 1:57 pm, Yusuke Iida wrote:
> Hi, Andrew
>
> I tested, where a patch is applied to the newest of 1.1 brunches.
> metadata of fence_legacy came to be performed only once.
> The time concerning device information construction was shortened at
> about 2 seconds.
> Therefore, the
Hi, Andrew
I tested, where a patch is applied to the newest of 1.1 brunches.
metadata of fence_legacy came to be performed only once.
The time concerning device information construction was shortened at
about 2 seconds.
Therefore, the problem is solved.
It was satisfactory although the composition
On 4 Jun 2014, at 8:11 am, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> On 3 Jun 2014, at 11:26 am, Yusuke Iida wrote:
>
>> Hi, Andrew
>>
>> About 15 seconds are the time taken in the whole device construction.
>> I think that it cannot receive the message from cib during device
>> construction since stonith-n
On 3 Jun 2014, at 11:26 am, Yusuke Iida wrote:
> Hi, Andrew
>
> About 15 seconds are the time taken in the whole device construction.
> I think that it cannot receive the message from cib during device
> construction since stonith-ng does not return to mainloop.
I'm reasonably sure this is bec
Hi, Andrew
About 15 seconds are the time taken in the whole device construction.
I think that it cannot receive the message from cib during device
construction since stonith-ng does not return to mainloop.
Jun 2 11:34:02 vm04 stonith-ng[4891]: info: init_cib_cache_cb:
Updating device list fr
On 2 Jun 2014, at 3:05 pm, Yusuke Iida wrote:
> Hi, Andrew
>
> I use the newest of 1.1 brunches and am testing by eight sets of nodes.
>
> Although the problem was settled once,
> Now, the problem with which queue overflows between cib and stonithd
> has recurred.
>
> As an example, I paste t
